What’s with the dustup over monkey bites among troops in Afghanistan?

A monkey rides on the back of a U.S. Army soldier Oct. 23, 2008, at combat outpost Dallas in the Kunar Province of eastern Afghanistan. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

Put this on the list of “strange but true” stuff we didn’t know about but cause others to get all worked up:

“To the Editor: We take serious issue with the dispatch by Mease and Baker on monkey bites among US military members in Afghanistan during 2011. In particular, we are troubled by the first paragraph,” several doctors and researches wrote to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently.

“ … listing bites from rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) as one of the many risks faced by military personnel deployed to Afghanistan. Although technically a true statement, it is misleading in its perspective. Since 2001, ≈2,000 US soldiers have died in Afghanistan and another ≈18,000 have been wounded in action. The authors juxtapose this toll with minor injuries incurred by 10 soldiers who flouted explicit rules prohibiting contact with pet monkeys,” write authors Gregory A. Engel, Agustin Fuentes, Benjamin P.Y.-H. Lee, Michael A. Schillaci, and Lisa Jones-Engel.

Okay …

A rhesus macaque relaxes in its enclosure after eating watermelon, provided by zookeepers to help the monkeys deal with hot summer temperatures, at the Kamla Nehru Zoological Gardens in Ahmedabad in 2012. The rhesus monkey (macaca mulatta) is native to northern India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma, Thailand, Afghanistan and southern China. (SAM PANTHAKY/AFP/GettyImages)

But what was the point of the original study by Luke Mease and Katheryn Baker, both affiliated with Army hospitals?

Essentially, the two just wanted to point out that there is a risk of getting a nasty monkey bite in Afghanistan and that bite can transmit bacteria and viruses. So, you know, heads up.

“In August 2011, a 24-year-old US Army soldier died of a rabies infection contracted while in eastern Afghanistan. This tragedy highlights the threat that animal bites pose to deployed military members.

“During 2001–2010, a total of 643 animal bites among deployed US military members were reported (1). Dogs were implicated in 50% of these bites, but several other animals pose risk as well. Prominent among these is the nonhuman primate M. mulatta (rhesus macaque), native to and commonly kept as a pet in Afghanistan (2) (Figure). Risks from M. mulatta monkey bites include physical trauma and/or infection with B-virus (Macacine herpesvirus 1), oral bacteria (including Clostridium tetani), and rabies virus.”

So is this just scientists quibbling over esoteric minutiae?

Turns out, the critics appear to be pretty darn worried about the monkeys – as well as the troops:

“Although it is advisable to avoid contact with monkeys, risk for disease transmission should be placed in proper perspective. Exaggerating risks of bites has, in the past, led to irrational culling of entire populations of macaques,” the critics wrote.

The original study’s authors responded: Fine …

“Nonetheless, we believe that risk for monkey bites deserves the attention of deployed medical providers. Risks for bacterial infection and major local trauma are critical for any macaque bite. We acknowledge that risk for contracting viral disease (rabies or B virus infection) from macaques in the wild is probably low, but we believe that it merits consideration.”

One of the interesting aspects of this dustup is the window it provides into the lives of regular ol’ young men and women in a strange land under stress … acting like, well, curious young Americans in a place where monkeys, domestic and wild, are routine.